Aristocles:If medical costs weren't so inflated and docs were allowed to compete across state-lines, maybe his treatment would have been affordable.

And if he'd had insurance, he'd have spent his own money on the care he's now getting. (I know that's not how it works - the premium I pay today goes mostly to other peoples' claims tomorrow, and when I file a claim, their premia come to me. I'm simplifying.)

Libertarian moocher is a mooch.

Let's say he's been without insurance for the last 3 years. His portion of an employer's plan premium would have been about $951/year, or $79.25/month. For 3 years or 36 months, he chose to spend $2,853 on everything but planning for this kind of contingency. $2800 wouldn't be near enough to cover this illness, sure, but the insurance he bought with it would have, even if you figure in a $10k deductible (his goal was $25k).

Everyone who donated has financed his awful planning. Shouldn't a father of two young girls be a better life-planner? Isn't that the responsible, "family-oriented" thing to do, Libertarians?

Mrbogey:NewportBarGuy: Imagine if his health care were covered by a single-payer entity. He wouldn't have to beg like some homeless person.

Instead he'd have to hope for the compassion of a faceless bureaucrat properly filing and approving his request and then receive bottom tier care. Relying on your neighbors and people who genuinely care for you to help you, that's no way to go through life, I tells ya. Gov't assistance... now that's dignified.

It's nice to know that the compassion some people feel towards him exists only as far as they want to prove a point.

A handout is a handout. This man sits in harsh judgement of others, yet takes no responsibility for himself.

Mrbogey:Instead he'd have to hope for the compassion of a faceless bureaucrat properly filing and approving his request and then receive bottom tier care

He should have given Aetna or Aflac, or Providence, or Humana thousands of his bootstrappy dollars over the years so some faceless corporate accountant could rescind his policy for not disclosing he had acne in high school.

Diogenes:Mrbogey: NewportBarGuy: Imagine if his health care were covered by a single-payer entity. He wouldn't have to beg like some homeless person.

Instead he'd have to hope for the compassion of a faceless bureaucrat properly filing and approving his request and then receive bottom tier care. Relying on your neighbors and people who genuinely care for you to help you, that's no way to go through life, I tells ya. Gov't assistance... now that's dignified.

It's nice to know that the compassion some people feel towards him exists only as far as they want to prove a point.

A handout is a handout. This man sits in harsh judgement of others, yet takes no responsibility for himself.

This. It's the cognitive dissonance that kills me. So this guy is being helped by the generosity of strangers. But what about a person who doesn't have presence on the internet, or a network of wealthy friends to raise money for them? They're just screwed AND they deserve to be screwed?

How can he celebrate the generosity of strangers in this situation, but condemn similarly situated people (who weren't so lucky) as an "irresponsible" person who "doesn't take responsibility for their own life" and therefore deserves to not have medical treatment?

As someone that has lived through a liver transplant I have to say this guy is proper farked. Most likely outcome is he does not survive and his family is left destitute. 25k doesn't even get started on keeping him alive long enough to even be considered to be put on the list.

First off it seems he has a history of drinking. Even if it is not the primary cause of liver failure no transplant team will even start the workup until he has demonstrated 6 months of sobriety. There are no shortcuts on this. Transplant teams have heard it all and seen it all. You will not fool them and they will gladly let you die if you continue to drink. Same for smoking. Same for not following Dr's orders.

Now during that 6 month period he's going to have a lot of Dr's appointments. Mine were weekly. Let's not forget weekly bloodwork that runs about 2k per week.

Now that's just routine stuff. He is in the hospital so I am going to guess ICU because when your liver puts you in the hospital its always farking critical. Lots of fun things can happen. Like when my kidneys said fark it we feel like failing too. Ah yes multi organ failure is a grand old time. It put me in ICU for 16 days at around 80k/day. Or he could have his esophageal varices burst. Super fun time. I lost consciousness when it happened to me. My wife tells me the ambulance crew was busy dropping IV's into me anywhere tehy could get a vein because I had already lost 5 liters of blood and the plasma was leaking out of me as fast as they could drop it in. MUCHO THANKS TO BLOOD DONORS EVERYWHERE!!!!! About then my doctors started thinking I was death proof. I did not feel like it. That was not the end either but it was the worst of it. Well except for the time TB decided to setup camp in the fluid in my belly that was supposed to be there so My body really didn't know how to fight it.

When I wasn't in the hospital trying to die I had a miserable existence. Most days I was just hoping I would piss or shiat. Sounds like a simple thing but when you don't life is hell. Spikes in the ammonia levels in my blood were always fun too. It made me more belligerent and unbearable than booze ever did.

Anyway, I had outstanding insurance for the entire experience. I also have to say My docs in NJ specifically UMDNJ were freaking rock stars of what they do.

This douchewaffle that likes to cheer on cancer when its people he does not like suffering from it is farked. Sure he can get longterm/permanent disability. That's going to take him some time to put together. Once he gets that he can file his paperwork for medicaid. He will get it eventually. If he is still alive.

Good luck asshole. If you survive it you won't be cheering on anyone elses illness. I know for a fact you're world view will change.

Dr Dreidel:Aristocles: If medical costs weren't so inflated and docs were allowed to compete across state-lines, maybe his treatment would have been affordable.

And if he'd had insurance, he'd have spent his own money on the care he's now getting. (I know that's not how it works - the premium I pay today goes mostly to other peoples' claims tomorrow, and when I file a claim, their premia come to me. I'm simplifying.)

Libertarian moocher is a mooch.

Let's say he's been without insurance for the last 3 years. His portion of an employer's plan premium would have been about $951/year, or $79.25/month. For 3 years or 36 months, he chose to spend $2,853 on everything but planning for this kind of contingency. $2800 wouldn't be near enough to cover this illness, sure, but the insurance he bought with it would have, even if you figure in a $10k deductible (his goal was $25k).

Everyone who donated has financed his awful planning. Shouldn't a father of two young girls be a better life-planner? Isn't that the responsible, "family-oriented" thing to do, Libertarians?

Libertarians aren't exactly known for consistency. Hell, Ayn Rand, the patron saint of those assholes, died with Social Security and Medicare paying for her lung cancer treatment.

This is just another classic example of "IT'S DIFFERENT WHEN I DO IT!"

You know, I'm glad that people were inspired to help. I don't wish a painful, miserable death for anyone, much less young parents just because I disagree with their blowhard politics. Yes, there is some karmic justice in him suffering so after openly mocking others' suffering, although he was just being a good Christian, perfectly in line with the Republican Bible.

However, what this will inevitably lead to is his charitable salvation being touted as the true way for this country, and that if he can get others to save him out of the goodness of their hearts, why can't everyone? And that will be a god damned shame.

Because Howe doesn't have health insurance, he and his family are worried that they won't be able to handle the impending bills

Not very bootstrappy, if you ask me....

Sure, this seems like a nice story about people putting aside their differences and helping out a fellow human being. First, though, I think we need to circulate a few of the things he has said, most notable what he had to say about Roger Ebert when HE was dying of cancer. These need to go directly to his family, so that they will personally know what it's like. After that, MAYBE the "Socialists" of the country could help this guy out. Apparently he got faulty bootstraps...

Seriously, what a farking douche.

Yeah, let's lob a couple of these around(With the name changed), and then see how long until the Conservative Blogosphere starts whining about "attacks" on this "poor man". Then we could RE-circulate them with the original names thrown in and enjoy the crickets...

This is why the professional bloggers need to think a little more deeply about what they say. I'll give as many shiats for his suffering as he gave for someone else's.

Aristocles:I don't know what sort of propaganda you've been reading, but, contrary to popular Farklib belief, there is such a thing as charity in a libertarian world view.

And I'm not sure what politicians you've voted for, but gaming the system - even a system of charity - is frowned upon by most. This guy failed to take the basic steps to insure his health, and for a cost far below what he's paying now. Libertarian government (NOT charity - that comes from people, not governments) would ignore the fark out of his medical problems.

"Bootstraps? What are those? I'll lift myself up once I've squeezed every penny from donors who are saddened by my family's state of affairs, but to pre-plan and buy insurance for $100/month? What am I a communist?"

He should have just pulled himself up by his bootstraps and gotten a job that paid more so he could pay his own medical bills. Or maybe borrow $20,000 from his parents and start a business and provide healthcare for himself!

Aristocles:No one here seems to understand that accepting charity is perfectly compatible with libertarianism. Libertarians simply believe that people shouldn't be compelled or forced to contribute to fund the health care of others.

In fact, if you think about, charity without compulsion is the only moral option. Because if you're forced to contribute, that's not a moral decision at all.

Hey new account created at the time of the height of the Zimmerman trial for trolling purposes,

Aristocles:No one here seems to understand that accepting charity is perfectly compatible with libertarianism. Libertarians simply believe that people shouldn't be compelled or forced to contribute to fund the health care of others.

In fact, if you think about, charity without compulsion is the only moral option. Because if you're forced to contribute, that's not a moral decision at all.

I find it funny that Libertarians are content to have people pay taxes to kill people but the idea of paying taxes to care for people is so abhorrent to them.

Perhaps I would be more willing to accept Liberatarianism if wars were also funded by charities.

Chummer45:No man is an island,Entire of itself,Every man is a piece of the continent,A part of the main.If a clod be washed away by the sea,Europe is the less.As well as if a promontory were.As well as if a manor of thy friend'sOr of thine own were:Any man's death diminishes me,Because I am involved in mankind,And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;It tolls for thee.

way south:I'd rather see a conversation about that than one for how best to give the middlemen their money.

By removing the middlemen, and going straight to government-paid healthcare.

That would greatly reduce the costs of health care. Sort of like how we have government paid police and fire departments: When the elasticity of a good can get to "Buy this good, right now, or you will die", free market theory doesn't really work.

qorkfiend:No insurance? No problem. Right up until it becomes a problem, of course. Then the rest of us get to pick up the slack.

How is mandatory insurance not making everyone pickup the slack for those who get sick?What you pay in covers for what the insurers pay out on those who got sick. We're simply debating whether payment is done by voluntary charity or an automatic deduction from our wages.

The problem is it isn't just the lack of insurance, but the outrageous pricing. Insurance would be easier to afford (and you could sooner cover the bills without it) if we could drag the costs of hospitalization back down to reasonable levels.

I'd rather see a conversation about that than one for how best to give the middlemen their money.

No man is an island,Entire of itself,Every man is a piece of the continent,A part of the main.If a clod be washed away by the sea,Europe is the less.As well as if a promontory were.As well as if a manor of thy friend'sOr of thine own were:Any man's death diminishes me,Because I am involved in mankind,And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;It tolls for thee.

Diogenes:Mrbogey: NewportBarGuy: Imagine if his health care were covered by a single-payer entity. He wouldn't have to beg like some homeless person.

Instead he'd have to hope for the compassion of a faceless bureaucrat properly filing and approving his request and then receive bottom tier care. Relying on your neighbors and people who genuinely care for you to help you, that's no way to go through life, I tells ya. Gov't assistance... now that's dignified.

It's nice to know that the compassion some people feel towards him exists only as far as they want to prove a point.

A handout is a handout. This man sits in harsh judgement of others, yet takes no responsibility for himself.

Well, he IS a Republican...

Also - I hope his suffering and death get televised on FOX, so All Republicans can see the inevitable end result of their beliefs.

Hey Republicans (e.g. Teabaggers, Libertarians, birthers, Birchers, KKK, fundamentalists, etc): The suffering and death of those who cannot afford health care is at the very core of your beliefs. Enjoy the Hell you have knowingly and willingly brought on yourselves.

tbeatty: Single payer isn't a panacea that makes care affordable. It is a way, however, to eliminate the "keeping up with the Jones's" mentality that pervades capitalist society. That mentality is what highlights disparity and drives innovation as well as overall improvement.

Hahahaha! Oh, you weren't serious about that, were you? You know what drives innovation - people having a basic level of education, health, a comfortable place to sleep and enough food so they don't have to worry about basic survival and can instead focus on their other talents and skills to be productive members of a society. You know what else drives innovation - funding for long term and important research that isn't just based on turning a profit each quarter or churning out more widgets that just get thrown in landfills every few months.

CPT Ethanolic:Mrbogey: It's nice to know that the compassion some people feel towards him exists only as far as they want to prove a point.

Why don't you go read some of his tweets laughing at the dying Roger Ebert or being thankful for Murtha dying. This guy's death should be celebrated, not mourned.

Which means that from here forward, with every breath he takes, he takes it with the certain knowledge, that the people he hates and despises, are demonstrably, better people than him./justice, of a sorts

Cagey B:There are people who die every day because they couldn't afford proper medical treatment. People like Caleb Howe have contributed to that state of affairs. I can think of quite a few people who are also in dire medical straits, with children, who didn't spend their time and effort attempting to harm society

who are far more deserving of charitable giving.

FTFY

Completely agree, I only have so much money for charitable contributions, but faced with deciding to GIVE to help someone who may need immediate medical assistance, I am going to break it down like this:

1. Did the person suffer a medical emergency due in whole or part to their own choices or actions?; or: Are they suffering due to accident or facing an illness due to no fault of their own?

(Guy with liver problem brought on by excess consumption of alcohol, or the diabetic who weighs 450 lbs with a 6 pack a day sugary cola habit used to wash down cookies and cakes is FAR less compelling case for charity to me than: Person gets hit by drunk driver or person who faces repeated hospitalization because of genetic or inherited disposition to some disease or illness.)

2. Ability to pay (or have insurance.)

(Person who lost their job and their cobra benefits and is living hand and mouth while trying to get another job is in a much better position for consideration for my giving than person who has/had a high paying job and pissed/pisses much of it away routinely on jet-set type vacations, high dollar cars all the while either not either saving or securing a decent insurance policy.)

3. Person's Contribution to Society

(The teacher or fireman or the woman who spends lots of time volunteering at her local Meals on Wheels is far more worthy of my charity than the local wannabe gang-banger or conservative blogger who spews so much hate in a public forum where he takes great joy in the suffering and death of those with whom he disagrees and is basically a "leach" and "drag" on society, and not just in an economic way.)

Sorry, while I understand and empathize the potential plight of his wife and young daughters, there's basically not a single thing in this story that I cannot point to and say: "You basically brought this upon your self and while what you constantly demanded of others, and whom you attacked, criticized and wished ill-will and death upon for failing to meet your standards, you were not willing or able to do for yourself."

Using my 3 step analysis above, there's simply no way in hell that I find this guy deserving of a single dime. I guarantee you I can find dozens of completely innocent and deserving people in my own community who truly are deserving of charitable giving. Let him reap what he has sown.

The Why Not Guy:Warlordtrooper: This is why liberals never win. We need to stop helping conservatives. This man deserves whatever disease he has.

I disagree. I don't know much about this man other than what's been posted in this thread. But I know I don't want to emulate his life or his lack of compassion. I'm better than that.

Fine. Donate money to your local health clinic. Talk to your teabagger neighbour about what's actually in Obamacare (talk slowly and use monosyllabic words), donate blood, register for your local bone marrow DNA matching service. Do something good for someone who isn't a complete and total POS. There's literally not one good reason to send money to this pusbag. He brought his ailment on himself, he mercilessly taunted people who were in similar situations, he chose not to get insured, he's anti-Obamacare/pro-Obamascare, and conservative bloggers are already attacking the same people who are helping this sack o' crap. Fark him.

The Why Not Guy:Bloody William: I'm tired of trolling as a concept. I want honest, spirited debates, none of this weird psychological playground shiat.

If anyone in charge is reading, let me second this. If it's about finances I would gladly pay $10 a month for what BW just described.

Count me in - just because someone's mommy and daddy didn't pay enough attention (or swat their behinds enough) when they were children and now they've grown into disfunctional adults with "issues" doesn't mean I want to read their troll posts.

BarkingUnicorn:MSFT: BarkingUnicorn:Believe me, I will. I prefer the delightful wonderment of not knowing, and the cynical comfort of knowing that I don't know.

I suppose I should have prefaced my remarks with, "IMHO," but it seems obvious to me that everything about Mind is just someone's opinion.

Which is perfectly fine - but try not to confuse you not knowing things with other people's ability to discover, test and then know things. Just because you have opted out doesn't mean the rest of us have, nor does it invalidate the findings of science that are reproducible and testable.

Try not to let your elaborate self-delusions convince you that you "know" anything. The greatest scientists eventually realize that they know nothing. They relax into wonder and enlightenment.

"A specialist is someone who learns more and more about less and less, until finally he knows everything about nothing." Then he escapes the cycle of death and rebirth... and reproducible results. :-)

I hate to break this to you, but even Buddhists - and the Dalai Lama - believe in science.

But hey - you're obviously too enlightened to deal with the rest of us caught up in this cycle of samsara, so thanks for taking the time to drop some self-masturbatory meta unknowledge on us.

There are people who die every day because they couldn't afford proper medical treatment. People like Caleb Howe have contributed to that state of affairs. I can think of quite a few people who are also in dire medical straits, with children, who didn't spend their time and effort attempting to harm society.

Three Crooked Squirrels:This reminds me a little of the GOPers that are staunchly against gay rights . . . until a family member turns out to be gay. Then, they change their position overnight. It seems to be par for the course for these conservatives - unable to back something that doesn't affect them personally, until it affects them personally.

Classic conservative story along those lines. Back in the late 60's/early 70's Paul Harvey was probably the best known conservative voice on radio (he was Limbaugh before there was a Limbaugh) with an average of 22 million listeners daily and had a syndicated column that was published in thousands of newspapers across the country. The toast of the town in conservative circles, you could always count on Harvey to be the echo if not the source of everything "pro-conservative" in regards to politics, society, religion, etc. A staunch supporter of Nixon, he was constantly voicing his opinion that we needed to go all out in Vietnam, he supported Curtis LeMay's position we should drop a nuke or two on North Vietnam, or as LeMay famously put it: "Bomb them back to the Stone Age."

One day in 1970, Harvey went on the air and completely reversed himself on the subject of Vietnam, declaring that the US should disengage themselves from the war and bring the troops home immediately. Conservatives were in a tizzy trying to figure out why their best known spokesperson had completely abandoned them on this issue. The answer arrived the next day when Paul, Jr. filed for conscientious objector status with his local draft board.

BTW, Harvey had changed his name early in his radio career and then lied about it for several years following. The reason why? He himself had been drafted during WWII and was sent to aviation school (flight training), he stole a plane and went for a "joy ride" in order to feign mental illness and get a Section 8 Discharge from the military and it worked. In the face of all those millions of veterans who had served, he didn't want the truth to get out that Mr. All-American Conservative was a coward who didn't want to fight for his country in WWII. This (draft dodging) of course, seems to be another somewhat familiar trait among many conservatives; see: Gingrich, Cheney, Limbaugh, Romney, Nugent, O'Reilly, Kristol, et al)

I'm sure that the conservative blogger will completely miss the whole message and try to use this as a way to prove that all government programs are worthless and that only private charities are needed.

Well, think of how much self-loathing the average wingnut must feel. I mean, that is not a group with which emotionally healthy people associate. Now multiply that self-loathing by about 10, and that is where the the typical wingnut media personality lives (Limbaugh, Coulter, Beck ,etc.). They recognize that their entire world-views are utterly without merit, devoid of even the tiniest scrap of truth or virtue. And every time they look in the mirror they see the faintest glimmer of the innocent children they once were, before Republican ideology turned their hearts to ignorance, bitterness and hate. And they have to live with that knowledge; that they are utterly without worth or merit, and there is no possibility that that will ever change.

Would you want to face that kind of life sober?

The alcoholism is a deliberate, slow suicide. But that's all wingnuts are capable of, because they aren't brave enough to suck a shotgun to orgasm.

So he was an alcoholic who isn't taking responsibly for himself...and made fun of dying people and Muslims...and right now there are thousands of other people with mounting medical bills who don't get a fund online that went viral. Seriously?

You know, I'd be happy to contribute to this guy's medical costs... through my taxes, under a single payer system, where we as a society recognize that every person is entitled to basic medical care, regardless of whether people like them, what choices they make in life, or how wealthy they are.

Dr Dreidel:Aristocles: Dr Dreidel: Libertarian government (NOT charity - that comes from people, not governments) would ignore the fark out of his medical problems.

This is true. But, under a Libertarian philosophy there's nothing wrong with giving or receiving charity, as long as it's not something compulsory.

But whence "personal responsibility"? That's my point - why should anyone want to help him if he won't help himself?

For any number of reasons that we may or may not know. It's up to individuals themselves to decide to help him, if he's a shaitbag to everyone, then chances are he won't receive much help. Planning for this sort of thing is his personal responsibility but should he fail to adequately plan that doesn't mean he has to refuse any outside help.

BarkingUnicorn:coeyagi: So, if I understand the position of the FarkDerpCons here, if you live in a small town of 120 people and you don't have insurance, you are just supposed to hope your neighbors, who in this case happen to be poor, can help you pay for your cancer treatments?

WINNING!

Or you can get someone to launch an online fundraiser for you.

I was friends with a street shoe-shiner in Denver. His mother died; at her funeral, his brother dropped dead. Neither had life insurance. Claude was stuck with $7600 in funeral expenses (the dumbass).

I wrote a blog post about Claude and his predicament with a Paypal donation link, tweeted the post's URL to my followers, and within 72 hours most of his problem was solved. I imagine today's fundraising sites would have let him retire

He's really a wonderful man, and I'm a helluva salesman. But most of all, I surround myself with kind people. Do that and you need not fear.

Funeral expenses < Medical expenses.

Did not read the rest, no need going down the rabbit hole of derp further. The point is, what the f*ck is the big deal? Everyone pay into a god damn system and we'll be fine. Those evil socialist countries (with higher standards of living) seem to be doing just fine.

Perlin Noise:This nation is turning into a place where one of the best ways to get ahead is to profit off of other people's suffering.

I've remarked for years that the commodity being priced/traded/purchased in the current system is not health care, it is the patients themselves. The consumers are the insurance companies and health care providers, the commodity are the patients. It is an aberration of capitalism.

mrshowrules:I like Americans and so wish you guys could also have single payer. Single payer would be great even if it cost more. The fact that it costs half as much just makes it incomprehensible as to why Americans wouldn't adopt it.

We don't care if it works better. It's socialism, and socialism sucks because it never works, even when it does.

Aristocles:No one here seems to understand that accepting charity is perfectly compatible with libertarianism. Libertarians simply believe that people shouldn't be compelled or forced to contribute to fund the health care of others.

In fact, if you think about, charity without compulsion is the only moral option. Because if you're forced to contribute, that's not a moral decision at all.

And if there had been no charity who would have paid for it? That's right. You and me. This isn't charity. It's still compelled because in the end, someone is paying for it and it's not HIM.

So, if I understand the position of the FarkDerpCons here, if you live in a small town of 120 people and you don't have insurance, you are just supposed to hope your neighbors, who in this case happen to be poor, can help you pay for your cancer treatments?

Mrbogey:Relying on your neighbors and people who genuinely care for you to help you, that's no way to go through life, I tells ya. Gov't assistance... now that's dignified.

If only there was a way to allow everyone in the country (we're all neighbors, right?) to pay a small amount, which would go toward providing some kind of assurance that, if you get sick, you won't die because you can't come up with $25k. Hell, they could even spread the cost over a long period of time so these "neighbors" aren't out the entire cost all at once. I'm shocked someone hasn't thought of this already.

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist:How do libertarians deal with the fact that we elect people specifically to enact laws that we agree with? I'm confused on why taxes are theft if we collectively, as a country, elect people who want to tax us. It's not like the government is some foreign, uncontrollable overlord that is hijacking trucks.

How is coercive if we have agreed as a country that some things we should pay for?

Aristocles:No one here seems to understand that accepting charity is perfectly compatible with libertarianism. Libertarians simply believe that people shouldn't be compelled or forced to contribute to fund the health care of others.

In fact, if you think about, charity without compulsion is the only moral option. Because if you're forced to contribute, that's not a moral decision at all.

I thought the other side of that was being a responsible consumer - the "personal responsibility" they're always going on about. What's responsible about shirking your duties to your family to save a few bucks, and then relying on charity? That's about as moochey as you can get, and even though it's not compulsory, it's not responsible in the slightest.

Yes, a libertarian paradise would have this man die of an easily-treatable liver condition. Is this the preferable alternative? Well, problem is people are just too damned compassionate - when it's someone they know or someone "of status" (like a well-known assbag politiblogger). This guy won't learn the right lesson because people came to HIS aid, why couldn't they come to someone else's? Never mind that most people necessarily won't have access to the same platforms as he does. Erick Erickson isn't on most people's speed dial (thankfully?).

It wouldn't be moral to let him die, but it is moral for him to rely solely on donations (in excess of what he'd have spent otherwise)? He shouldn't be proactive in insuring his health, and it's totally cool for him to use his daughters as leverage to get him care? (To a Libertarian, emotional arguments are the domain of bleeding hearts and socialists.)

If all those people paid for his care, do they get to dictate that he get a real job once he's recovered? Can they peer into the rest of his health record now and prevent his wife from seeing a reproductive specialist or an end-of-life counselor if his health turns bad again? (Do the same strings the GOP want to put on public-funded health care get to be put on crowd-funded care?)

He's publicly dedicated to living the Libertarian ideal, and happy to be a liberal/socialist when it suits his needs. Heal him, but fark him.

How do libertarians deal with the fact that we elect people specifically to enact laws that we agree with? I'm confused on why taxes are theft if we collectively, as a country, elect people who want to tax us. It's not like the government is some foreign, uncontrollable overlord that is hijacking trucks.

How is coercive if we have agreed as a country that some things we should pay for?

No one here seems to understand that accepting charity is perfectly compatible with libertarianism. Libertarians simply believe that people shouldn't be compelled or forced to contribute to fund the health care of others.

In fact, if you think about, charity without compulsion is the only moral option. Because if you're forced to contribute, that's not a moral decision at all.

Are they better off being raised by an apparent alcoholic with now chronic health problems or would they be better off if dad dies and their mom marries some healthy guy or maybe we should just offer them up for adoption to a traditional family. There are stated to be beatiful in the article and this dude looks white so it shouldn't be hard to find a good family for them.

Here is where I stop and wonder about the mandate to buy insurance. One of my biggest beefs with Obamacare is that it requires you to buy health insurance. Outside of a basic set of what's covered, you could be boned on things like this, anyway. You still pick what your coverage outside of the basics are covered, especially since the states get to decide a lot of what should be covered within their borders.

This could, conceivably, happen to a Liberal blogger who would delight in the horrible death of Glenn Beck when it happened. See, that's the scary part. Even if this blogger had done everything right, he still might be up a crick without a paddle and need to turn to blogger friends to pay for it.

I wish the Republicans would follow through with the threatened repeal of Obamacare so that a real health-care payment (only) system could be implemented.

I can't wait until he recovers from his transplant enough to start blogging about how people who can't pay their own way through life are trash who deserve utter scorn, and how medical bankruptcy is a myth because hey, he got a liver transplant and doesn't owe jack shiat but a smile and a hug.

Is what Caleb Howe said about Roger Ebert when he was dying of cancer.

I know it's morally the right thing to do and all and we're supposed to act better than drunken d-bags who behave horribly towards other human beings, but I'm still having a hard time with this one. :/

Should've let him die. So long as we keep bailing out failed conservative policies, they're never going to learn. Sure there's a chance that this guy will take this situation, learn from it, and come out with an empathetic mindset that understands that relying on charity for basic medical care is untenable, but most likely he's going internalize his derp using the rationale that he deserved saving over everyone else or have an "I've been on welfare and food stamps and nobody helped me" moment.

way south:qorkfiend: No insurance? No problem. Right up until it becomes a problem, of course. Then the rest of us get to pick up the slack.

How is mandatory insurance not making everyone pickup the slack for those who get sick?What you pay in covers for what the insurers pay out on those who got sick. We're simply debating whether payment is done by voluntary charity or an automatic deduction from our wages.

The problem is it isn't just the lack of insurance, but the outrageous pricing. Insurance would be easier to afford (and you could sooner cover the bills without it) if we could drag the costs of hospitalization back down to reasonable levels.

I'd rather see a conversation about that than one for how best to give the middlemen their money.

Okay. Let's start with the fact that every other developed country on the planet spends less money on health care than we in America do. Are there any common denominators there? It turns out there are; every single one of those countries uses government power to set prices for health care services.

ppffffft.....I wish him well, but will save my assistance to those who do not have the luxury of writing blog posts that seek to exclude and marginalize others. Besides, I am sure the Koch Brothers, Sean Hannity, Josh Trevino, Ben Domenech or Mike Krempasky will be right at his side with open wallets and schmoopy conservative love. Yes?